CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/0003 dated 30-1-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri S.C. Agrawal
Respondent: President's Secretariat
Decision announced 5.3.'10
FACTS
By an application of 11-8-08 Shri S.C. Agrawal of Dariba, Delhi applied
to the CPIO, President’s Secretariat seeking the following information:
“1. Is President’s Secretariat aware that Delhi High Court
has famed its own rules for ‘Right to Information Act’
which are in contradiction to provisions of RTI Act as
passed by the Parliament and assented by Honourable
the President of India, and also to notifications issued by
Department of Personnel & Training from time to time?2. If yes, please provide action taken by President’s
Secretariat against registry of Delhi High Court against
such framing of rules.3. Will President’s Secretariat approach judicial side of Delhi
High Court under article 226 of the Constitution to get the
things corrected?4. has some other public authority other than Delhi High
Court also over rules provisions of RTI Act by imposing
their own rules, which are in contradiction to provisions of
RTI Act and to notifications issued by Department of
Personnel, & Training from time to time? If yes, kindly
name those public authorities.5. Any other related information on the issue.
6. Please provide file notings.”
After going through the process of response and appeal appellant Shri
Agrawal has approached this Commission in 2nd appeal with the following
prayer:“APIO at Delhi High Court has made such an undue
demand of additional RTI fees even after esteemed CIC
verdict dated 23.9.2008. in appeal number
CIC/WB/A/2007/00418 (Kamini Jaiswal vs. Delhi High Court)
where Honourable the Chief Information Commissioner had
required that Delhi High Court may amend its rules in
accordance with various sections of RTI Act. Public
Information Officer at Delhi High court may kindly be
directed to provide required information as ought in my RTI
petition dated 11.8.2008 addressed to President’s
Secretariat without charging any additional fees of rupees
forty. Public authority of Delhi High Court may kindly be
directed to amend its rules in a manner that these may not
deviate from provisions of RTI Act as passed by both
Houses of the Parliament and assented by the President of
India. Any other relief as deemed fit in favour of the
petitioner may kindly be allowed.”The appeal was scheduled for hearing on 5-3-2010. In the meantime
we have received a representation from Shri S.C. Agrawal dated 26-2-2010
submitting that, “The case has already been decided in another petition No.
CIC/WB/C/2008/00872.”DECISION NOTICE
We have examined the file on complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00872.
We find that we have indeed announced a decision in this matter together
with a decision on complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00871, on 10-7-2009. The
application for information in file No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00872 is indeed the
same as the initial application in the present appeal as quoted above.
Whereas that was a complaint u/s 18(1) however, the present case is an
appeal u/s 19(3).In our decision notice in that case we have announced as
follows:“Clearly the fee payable under sub-Section (1) of Sections 6 and 7 is
required to be prescribed by the competent authority by Rules
provided to carry out the provisions of this Act. The CJ of the High
Court is competent authority of the High Court and the President of
India, who is represented in this matter through the administrative
Ministry, the competent authority for all organisations not otherwise
listed in sub-sec (e) of Sec 2. In no way therefore is the High Court of
Delhi governed by the RTI (Regulation of Fee & Cost Rules) 2005 of
the DoPT.In both these cases the appropriate ‘competent’ authorities have
published the Rules. This Commission has no jurisdiction to rule on
the matter. However, this authority to make rules is qualified by the
proviso to Section 7 (5), which states as follows:7 (5)
Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of
section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall
be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from
the persons who are of below poverty line as may be
determined by the appropriate Government.
It is for this reason that this Commission had under the authority
vested in us under sub Section 5 of Section 25 recommended to
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that they might review the fee
initially prescribed in their Rules, which had then been kept at
Rs. 500/-. Accepting this recommendation the fee has now been
brought to Rs. 50/-, and it is in the context of recommendations
received that Hon’ble the Chief Justice had expressed views
that complainant Shri Agrawal quotes. There can be no grounds
of complaint in this matter. Both complaints are, therefore,
dismissed.”
Clearly then the issue in the present appeal being a duplication of that
in the earlier complaint, which has already been adjudicated upon, hence
becomes infructuous. This is accordingly dismissed.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost
to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
5-3-2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
5-3-2010